Making Meditation "safe" for a certain sector

More
9 years 4 months ago #95911 by Ona Kiser
A friend brought this article to my attention, and rather than email her back about it, i thought I'd jot some comments of my own here, and the link, since others might find the article interesting. It's theaerogram.com/white-science-meditation/

I generally tend to be more interested in the individual and his/her psychology/conditions than in labeling abstract groups of people in broad ways, as the latter is both less interesting, less accurate and often undermining of the dignity and worth of the individuals who get lumped in. But some amount of "people say" or "most Americans" and so on can't really be avoided if one is to ever have a conversation. Anyway.

[ETA: My comments also seem to be heading in the direction of rambling personal reflection, not really about the article; please feel free to ignore me and comment in your own way on whatever aspects of it seem interesting to you, if any.]

Some number of Americans find religious behavior unappealing. Pragmatic dharma happens to be partly inspired by this tendency. I recall opinion in the earlier days at least (perhaps from an older generation who was closer to the 1970s) not wanting to meditate in a context or style associated with hippies, long hair, gurus and swamis, and other symbols of the Hindu and Buddhist trends brought to the West by that generation of travelers to the East. In large part people in pragmatic dharma is also part of a broader secular/modern context in the US (and some other countries, I'd guess) in which there is a general tendency to highly value the individual and his opinions, independence from family and community (including their religious components), a high value on science seen as oppositional to religion (a dichotomy which I think seems exacerbated in the US by ongoing conflict (or perceived conflict) among a small number of extremists??), and so on. It seems to be predominant in a social class that is heavily urban, college-educated, and who knows what else.

I tend to find this pattern interesting because it's not the norm where I live now, and I never had that "outsider" perspective when I lived in the US. For instance, I grew up in a "hippie" town, where lots of people were left-leaning social activists, dressed in unusual ways, smoked a lot of weed, and so on. I have this memory of a "hippie town". But if I actually think on the neighbors who lived next door, one by one, not a single family I can think of fits the stereotype in my head. So the image in my head of the hippie town is supported by "that guy who worked at the candle shop" or "that family down the street with the one-eared cat" or "that girl whose brother painted murals" but not by any of the 50 families I can recall who lived in the houses adjacent to us, who were ALL church-attending, non-hippie, professional, and mainstream in the visible ways I recall from memory.

And yet I recall when I have been involved in religious life (much of my adult life in one form or another) how it triggered suspicion in my family. For instance, among my generation of cousins that I know personally, to my knowledge most are not religious, some are. Among my parents generation (aunts, uncles): most are not, some are. To my knowledge. Sometimes it doesn't come up in conversation, and the aunt you assumed was an atheist turns out to have drifted into the Episcopal church as she aged, or another one turns out to read the Bible daily, it just never came up in conversation.

Anyway, if there was any point, I've lost it. Hugs to you all. Back to my 3am tea. :) It's becoming a custom.

I guess just to add, I do not find it useful to say "oh, bad mainstream white meditators, you are bad!" or "bad magazine pandering to your little audience, bad!" - people have drives to associate in groups where they feel at home, which is normal. Sometimes the creating of this kind of groupness involves defining what we are not, which is normal and necessary, otherwise there's no group: "we are a forum devoted to supporting meditation free of doctrine, based on personal experience, open to using bits and pieces of various traditions in a freeform way, etc etc" or whatever. Sometimes this factor tends to generate hostility: "we are not like those idiots who think x, who wear funny clothes, who buy into those silly beliefs, who blindly follow teachings of that style" or whatever. That tends to draw people who feel insecure in their identity and feel more secure if they express some aggression towards others, to help develop a stronger sense of safety in their identity. Normal, too, but can get unsafe and unhelpful quickly, so it's nice when we can catch ourselves in that territory and not fall in the hole. That is, bashing the stereotypical intolerant atheist white meditators (or media) is just as unskillful and harm-causing as bashing the stereotypical hippie or Asian (per the article) guru-following myth-believing meditator, and so on.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95916 by Shargrol
For what it's worth... my post got away from me, too, but here it is in all of its sloppy glory... :)

Ultimately, this is probably the oldest theological and cultural condundrum in the universe. How comfortable is too comfortable, how safe is too safe, how solidly identified is too solid, etc.? When to keep people from the edge of the cliff and when to bring people to the edge?

Ultimately, I tend to go with a live and let live approach, and if anything really focus on promoting personal honest and responsibility. Mostly we have a pretty primal urge to "grab" all the benefits and "push away" all the negative consequences, which plays out in a million ways. When we can actually be responsible for the consequences of our benefits, then we have a fighting chance at really designing human systems that are mutually beneficial and allow for rewarding real merit. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm hopeful for little and pervasive changes in that direction.

If really pushed to say anthing more about the value of "safe" groups, my thoughts on this always seem to come down to the "training wheels" idea -- that at some point things truly do get too comfortable. I don't have a magic rule about when the threshold gets crossed, it seems very case by case, person by person.

On one hand, no one can disparage the use of training wheels if it gets you safely riding a bike. No one needs to keep skinning their knee when there are better options. But there is something disconcerting about an adult riding around with training wheels... you want to say "oh, you're missing out on what if feels like to really lean into a turn." If they say, "no we believe that bikes are made to be ridden mostly up and down and I can turn just fine and these training wheels and really they don't even touch the ground because I'm so well balanced, so that isn't an issue"... then I guess you can either walk away silently or say "I think you might be missing something" and then walk away. It gets interesting if they reverse it and say that your ideas about training wheels are dismissive or hurtful, simply because you are suggesting there is more than training wheels, then that just puts people in a tough situation along the lines of "if you're so smart, why don't you kill my sacred cow in front of my eyes" -- it's hard to imagine anything good coming from that.

(by the way, I was thinking more in terms of ideas about religious buddhism vs buddhist meditation when I wrote the above, but I guess it might generalize)

However, if things are open and kind hearted enough to really have a conversation and sharing and mutual critique... well, that's the best part about being alive. Learning, growing, opening... yet staying grounded within one's own abilities and capabilities and actions, too.

Since the article also mentions Sam Harris, I think it's on topic to link to an article Ron wrote about Sam Harris:
alohadharma.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/in-...-sacred-cow-butcher/

I fear that this will be too provocative, but I also think that there is a high level of maturity here and we can handle it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #95917 by Shargrol
By the way...

BIG DISCLAIMER:

I'm only posting the link because of the small part that talks about what aspects of a safe groups are critique-able. I'm not specifically advocating for anything else coming out of Sam's or Ron's mouth.

EDIT: it's the part that starts "they take the healthy psychological process of identity formation and hack it like a computer virus"
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Shargrol.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95923 by Ona Kiser
Should I arm myself with a gin and tonic before proceeding? ;)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95924 by Shargrol
YES! Excellent intuition.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #95925 by Ona Kiser
I'm not sure I got the connection you were making with the article(s) and so on. But on another topic, your training wheels wording was interesting. In the horse world, there has been a boom in popularity with various "natural horsemanship" trainers, many of whom teach methods of exercises done on the ground to help establish a working relationship, clear communication and trust between horse and person, skills which can then be transferred to work while riding the horse. These are particularly appealing and helpful in cases where people have a horse that is ill-behaved, poorly trained or unsafe to be around. Since riding is risky anyway, learning to work confidently and clearly with your horse while NOT riding is a great way to re-set the basics and then move on towards a more complete retraining. What is not uncommon (similarly to your training wheels theme) is that some people who own horses who are poorly managed or temperamentally not suitable end up only doing these exercises, with the presumed goal of riding one day never materializing. The groundwork can go on indefinitely.

Now on the one hand this is frequently disparaged as a sign of a) stupidity/incompetence of the BAD PERSON or b) the BAD METHOD that "keeps them" from progressing to riding. But the fact is, some people are probably a whole lot happier and safer NOT riding. What's wrong with having a large dog-like pet that you find beautiful and that you take for walks and play with in the barn and pasture? The only thing wrong, I suppose, is if you constantly tell people that you want to ride, but "can't" because the groundwork needs more time (and that never changes). Or if people mock you because horses are "supposed" to be ridden and you are not riding yours.

So yes, it seems it is right enough and lovely enough that some people just want to meditate for relaxation, or some find safety in a superficial happy-clappy system, or a rigid religious practice etc. On the other hand, if someone keeps dropping by the horse trainer to talk about how they want to ride one day (ie keeps going to groups, sanghas, forums, teachers, talking about waking up), then perhaps saying "hey, if you really want something different than you've got, then you need to look at this and that, let go of these assumptions, shake things up a bit, etc.".

Above may not make any sense. Just tell me if that's the case.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Ona Kiser.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95926 by Jake St. Onge
I think it's tricky striking a balance between
1) watching out for how my background and circumstances can create blind spots in how I relate to other individuals and other cultures
and
2) acknowledging the human universality of these blindspots, rather than acting as if only cis-gendered white men had them
;)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #95927 by Shargrol
Yes, the horse walking example is a good one. There will always be people who say "a horse is to be ridden and that's that", but I agree there is room in this world for all sorts of possibilities as long as you are taking care of the horse (which could be a figurative statement as well as a literal one).

I probably could piece the threads of my posts back together, but I've kind lost the thread myself. I guess I was kinda riffing on your idea that it's okay to hang out in "safe" groups for support, while also riffing on the idea that just because someone finds a group "safe" it doesn't mean that it is beyond reproach.

The article you linked to is interesting, but I find the author's point a bit of a stretch. He's basically saying that people aren't resonating with scientific studies of meditation, it's that people are racist and classist and it's only when white middle class people explain it western terms that it has become acceptable. "Instead of the difference between religious and scientific sources, then, what seems more likely is that Americans are starting to hear messages about meditation from sources they are more comfortable with, namely, “normal” white people." I actually think it is pretty straight forward that it is indeed the scientific sources that people are resonating with. Simple. Basically, western people have a "validity test" that isn't based on authority or antiquity but rather practicality and demonstrability... which isn't racist or classist.

When he says "However, it’s too easy to let ourselves off the hook — as a society and as individuals — by saying that this shift from the religious “fringe” to the the secular “mainstream” isn’t rife with colonialism, oppression, and cultural appropriation." I actually agree with him, but I think he chooses an odd example in Sam Harris. Harris is actively non-appropriating culture, basically separating the cultural aspects of meditation practice from the practice of meditation.

I think he (edit: Sridharan not Harris) is making a rhetoric argument: westerners trust science, westerners are racist, therefore if you trust science you are a racist. ??? It's kind of a sloppy article.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Shargrol.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95937 by Kate Gowen
There are all kinds of directions a conversation about these issues can go: political analysis (including sexual and identity politics) , science vs religion (a trope I'm personally fairly tired of), East vs West (ditto). I saw it posted by Brad Warner with some wry disclaimer about his own status as a white, Western, etc. Zen guy.

I am furiously ambivalent about the necessary-- and wearying-- conversation about race. It is hard to imagine what a resolution to the angst on all sides would be like.

What I find interesting is every opportunity to have my assumptions shoved into view: what convinces me that something is valuable, and valid? What are my expectations of religion? Of science? Of politics, for that matter? How much do the opinions of others matter? What value do my OWN opinions have? What are the metrics?

It always seems to me that Sam Harris is not so much refraining from appropriating other cultures, as obliterating them out of his unquestioned cultural superiority. He's far from alone in this stance, but he's kind of the most vocal poster boy. Not my cup of tea, any more than my friends in the 1960s playing Hindu dress-up-- on the other end of the spectrum.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95941 by Chris Marti
This area is sticky, huh? All I can add from my own perspective is that a big part of what pulled me into mediation was that it wasn't a western, scientifically proven or accepted thing. I was and am very comfortable with the fact that other cultures and religions have something to offer that is different, beneficial and from an entirely different orientation to being human. 'Course maybe that's just reverse prejudice ;-)

FWIW

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago - 9 years 4 months ago #95944 by Shargrol
Interesting. I think I was relating this to Andy at BG's... I originally got fully hooked because back in the early days of the internet there was a female western teacher named yeshe wangmo who had studied with kalu rinpoche and was describing tibetian practices in terms of cross walking them with psychology to provide a kind of grounding/explaination. I found a snapshot of one of those IRC logs posted somewhere and it clicked what the "work" was, at least for me and at that time.
Last edit: 9 years 4 months ago by Shargrol.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
9 years 4 months ago #95945 by Chris Marti

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum